LF a new monitor

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
I am looking for a new monitor and would really like to find a 1440p, IPS, 100hz+ for ~$300. I have been looking on line and could not find one. I am in the Chicago land area so if anyone knows of a place that might have one, please let me know. I would take a 24" monitor, because I don't think a 27" will be at that price for at least a year.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: If it has a stand that can pivot, it would be even better.
 

Crystallas

Three if by air
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
19,890
Liked Posts:
9,618
Location:
Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
That's not an easy task within that budget. Its not the 27" that kills, it's the IPS that makes it difficult to find a good panel for the price. A good TN is still a sweet display, but the issue is the market is flooded with shit TN panels, so I don't blame you. Plus above 60Hz, the market forces you to make a very specific choice; either buy a much older controller and likely a considerably older panel, or you get an A-Sync monitor(then you might watch to best pair the A-Sync with your video card if present, ie: G-Sync for newer nVidia GPUs or Free-Sync for newer AMD GPUs).

Locally we have Microcenters, Frys, and the usual chains like Best Buy/HHGreg/Walmart. Ordering from Amazon, Newegg, Tiger, etc, all work fine since monitors are so light nowadays. Instead of returning it to a store, you print a label or bring it to a parcel hub/post office. And I'm sure there are a lot of stores I forgot about. I haven't found a good price at Staples/OfficeMax since ....never. But maybe someone knows the trick to shopping there and can enlighten us.
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
I have a 1080 card, and the g-sync monitors are pricey. I am hoping that Nvidia decides to support free-sync now that Intel has said they would. A driver update could help.

I know it is a tall order at that price, that is why I posted here. I have not been able to find one, and I am hoping someone can help. It is very hard to find a 1440p 100hz+ for under $400.

I think the IPS is the first place I am willing to give, because as you said TN can be good. The problem is if I am not sure I want to order one blind off a webesite that is TN; especially if I cannot find multiple reviews on it.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
You are not going to find that monitor at that price. Not even if you buy used. 1440p, +100hz, IPS immediately puts you in the +$600 Freesync/G-sync range.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
I found this one:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY3MK9378

Not sure I trust it. If also does not have pivot. It is on my radar as an option.

Sketch-tastic. Unknown brand and the product info is written is broken English:

• Overclocking (100Hz)
• The high refresh rate through overclocking
• Overclocking rate(100Hz) depends on the performance of graphic card.
• It is not guaranteed by manufacturer
• Some graphic cards could not be overclockable

"We provide a plug converter for US, Canadian Buyers.110 ~ 240 V adapter included." Also, take a glance at the backlight bleeding policy.

Probably an incredibly poorly-made Chinese time-bomb. There are better ways to waste $340.
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
Sketch-tastic. Unknown brand and the product info is written is broken English:

• Overclocking (100Hz)
• The high refresh rate through overclocking
• Overclocking rate(100Hz) depends on the performance of graphic card.
• It is not guaranteed by manufacturer
• Some graphic cards could not be overclockable

"We provide a plug converter for US, Canadian Buyers.110 ~ 240 V adapter included." Also, take a glance at the backlight bleeding policy.

Probably an incredibly poorly-made Chinese time-bomb. There are better ways to waste $340.

Thus the reason I stated I don't know if i trust it. I could not find many reviews on the monitor.

Overclocking a monitor has become increasingly easy. It is the the same as overclocking video card or CPU. I am sure my 1080 will be able to push more than 60FPS on just about any game at 1440p. So I just need a monitor that can allow me to do it.

I don't want to spend a lot on this one, because the monitor will move to my second monitor when g-sync comes down in price. I may have to wait a year, but at that time I will get a ~35" curved ultrawide with g-sync. I just don't want to spend a bunch of money on a monitor that will ultimately get relegated to non video intensive apps in the next 6-18 months.
 

Crystallas

Three if by air
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
19,890
Liked Posts:
9,618
Location:
Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
Good luck with your search.

I sure hope monitor tech has a good year. I don't see it so much myself.
I have an UHD 31" display and a 34" 21:9 2560x1080 secondary, both 60Hz. And the higher resolution is just way more valuable for me. You don't need to run games at UHD, but for the games that benefit from higher res, Civ 6 comes to mind, I just couldn't go back. Shooters and racing (thats what, 30%-ish combined of the market? ) benefits from higher refresh compared to higher resolution from strategy,sim,RP, adventure and MMOs (50-something% IIRC combined). So yes, it's not something most people will agree on as it is generally divided between dedicated gamer types. SO I know what I use wont work for others, not claiming it to be the best for anyone else.

But what sucks about 4K, it's not about the content, there is plenty of worthwhile content and workspace benefit for running a 4K monitor in ... 2014 even(I was an early adopter), let alone today... is the lack of higher refresh rates. I know some people convince themselves that content isn't there, but wow. Going back to 1440p is a huge hit, even with the better hardware drivers pushing 144Hz RR. We need the best of both worlds soon, and for whatever reason, I just don't see 2017 having a good push for 4K 100+Hz monitors. Maybe a couple come out, and they wind up being $3000, but fuck that. I did that a few times (buying monitors more expensive than the computer) and it NEVER pays off to be the early adopter of display tech. It could be that I'm missing fanboy rhetoric somewhere too, where 4K is better with one company and 2K is better with another, therefore obvious splits and spits, but I couldn't tell you since IDGAF about fanboy arguments.

My whole point is, I've been waiting since early 2014 for a 4k 30+" monitor with 120hz+ with vesa mounts and hardware standards, but nothing doing other than a few ridiculous niche monitors with piss latency or uneven brightness. You might be waiting for a few years to find your monitor from a decent vendor in spec. Widen that budget and get what you really want, because $300, even on sale, will be a real stretch for the foreseeable future.
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
1440 100 Hz IPS gon be real hard to find at that price.

I been watching monitors for about a year now cause I want one too and high refresh IPS have not budged very much on price. Its starting to feel like gouging at this point, especially with the ultrawides.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
1440 100 Hz IPS gon be real hard to find at that price.

I been watching monitors for about a year now cause I want one too and high refresh IPS have not budged very much on price. Its starting to feel like gouging at this point, especially with the ultrawides.

If you're lucky enough to live near a Microcenter they have the Asus MG279Q for $530. 1440p, 144Hz, IPS, Freesync, and seems to have a nice adjustable mount.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
Anybody know if existing Freesync monitors will be compatible with Freesync 2?
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
Anybody know if existing Freesync monitors will be compatible with Freesync 2?

Highly unlikely as the major difference is that freesync 2 will use HDR high dynamic range, and most of the monitors that are "freesync" monitors hardware won't support HDR.

Gsync already uses HDR, so this will push the two standards closer together and may help bring about a unified standard in the next few years. That would be great for my next build.
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
Good luck with your search.

I sure hope monitor tech has a good year. I don't see it so much myself.
I have an UHD 31" display and a 34" 21:9 2560x1080 secondary, both 60Hz. And the higher resolution is just way more valuable for me. You don't need to run games at UHD, but for the games that benefit from higher res, Civ 6 comes to mind, I just couldn't go back. Shooters and racing (thats what, 30%-ish combined of the market? ) benefits from higher refresh compared to higher resolution from strategy,sim,RP, adventure and MMOs (50-something% IIRC combined). So yes, it's not something most people will agree on as it is generally divided between dedicated gamer types. SO I know what I use wont work for others, not claiming it to be the best for anyone else.

But what sucks about 4K, it's not about the content, there is plenty of worthwhile content and workspace benefit for running a 4K monitor in ... 2014 even(I was an early adopter), let alone today... is the lack of higher refresh rates. I know some people convince themselves that content isn't there, but wow. Going back to 1440p is a huge hit, even with the better hardware drivers pushing 144Hz RR. We need the best of both worlds soon, and for whatever reason, I just don't see 2017 having a good push for 4K 100+Hz monitors. Maybe a couple come out, and they wind up being $3000, but fuck that. I did that a few times (buying monitors more expensive than the computer) and it NEVER pays off to be the early adopter of display tech. It could be that I'm missing fanboy rhetoric somewhere too, where 4K is better with one company and 2K is better with another, therefore obvious splits and spits, but I couldn't tell you since IDGAF about fanboy arguments.

My whole point is, I've been waiting since early 2014 for a 4k 30+" monitor with 120hz+ with vesa mounts and hardware standards, but nothing doing other than a few ridiculous niche monitors with piss latency or uneven brightness. You might be waiting for a few years to find your monitor from a decent vendor in spec. Widen that budget and get what you really want, because $300, even on sale, will be a real stretch for the foreseeable future.

I think we will start to see some large price drops in monitors over the next 18 months.

AOC for example has a new monitor coming soon:
https://www.amazon.com/AOC-AG352UCG...ments=p_89:AOC,p_n_size_browse-bin:3547808011

ultraside/curved/2k/g-sync/100hz for 900 starting is pretty nice. I could see sales pushing it down to 700.

Generally speaking it takes about 3-5 years of accessibility before the prices drop. PC hardware has been able to push 2k high refresh rates for a bit now so I think the prices on 2k high refresh monitors will stop to drop.

As for 4k, like you said high fresh is not happening now; I doubt even in the next 12 months. There are limitations to getting to 4k 100hz monitors, as I am sure you know. No physical cabe that hooks up monitors to GPUs can support the bandwith. No GPU can process and push the bandwith in a game where people would eve care about high HZ. Like you said people only really need them in shooters, and shooters are very graphically intensive. I am sure people now can get their GPU to to render 4k 100hz+ in DOTA, but who cares. It is not like it matter.

To even come close to 4k 100hz you will probably need SLI 1080TI. That PC costs about 3k. Until the GPUs catch up to the monitors, there won't be a high enough adoption to bring the technology cost down.

In short my prediction is 2k high HZ will start to drop in price and 4k will still be slow to adopt high HZ and the cost will stay very high for a bit when it finally does come around.
 

Crystallas

Three if by air
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
19,890
Liked Posts:
9,618
Location:
Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
Just run a dual DP. It's not a big issue ;) Of course, that requires a little bit of planning, as far as mating the right hardware to it, but come on, things are ridiculously easy now that mating basic specs can be done by anyone without severe ADHD. It's not like 18 years ago when running 2560×1600 at high RR meant dual cable DVI (not dual DVI, before dual link, and that became confusing as hell) from a single GPU card. I kind of wish I still had that NEC monitor, but I traded it for a few 21" NMPCDs, which are scarce now, so win:win.
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
I think we will start to see some large price drops in monitors over the next 18 months.

AOC for example has a new monitor coming soon:
https://www.amazon.com/AOC-AG352UCG...ments=p_89:AOC,p_n_size_browse-bin:3547808011

ultraside/curved/2k/g-sync/100hz for 900 starting is pretty nice. I could see sales pushing it down to 700.

Generally speaking it takes about 3-5 years of accessibility before the prices drop. PC hardware has been able to push 2k high refresh rates for a bit now so I think the prices on 2k high refresh monitors will stop to drop.

As for 4k, like you said high fresh is not happening now; I doubt even in the next 12 months. There are limitations to getting to 4k 100hz monitors, as I am sure you know. No physical cabe that hooks up monitors to GPUs can support the bandwith. No GPU can process and push the bandwith in a game where people would eve care about high HZ. Like you said people only really need them in shooters, and shooters are very graphically intensive. I am sure people now can get their GPU to to render 4k 100hz+ in DOTA, but who cares. It is not like it matter.

To even come close to 4k 100hz you will probably need SLI 1080TI. That PC costs about 3k. Until the GPUs catch up to the monitors, there won't be a high enough adoption to bring the technology cost down.

In short my prediction is 2k high HZ will start to drop in price and 4k will still be slow to adopt high HZ and the cost will stay very high for a bit when it finally does come around.

If that monitor you linked drops to $700 ima buy that shit up
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
If that monitor you linked drops to $700 ima buy that shit up

i don't think it is even released yet, just pre-order. i suspect there will be at least one $100 off sale in the next 12 months, and $200 off would not surprise me.
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
Just run a dual DP. It's not a big issue ;) Of course, that requires a little bit of planning, as far as mating the right hardware to it, but come on, things are ridiculously easy now that mating basic specs can be done by anyone without severe ADHD. It's not like 18 years ago when running 2560×1600 at high RR meant dual cable DVI (not dual DVI, before dual link, and that became confusing as hell) from a single GPU card. I kind of wish I still had that NEC monitor, but I traded it for a few 21" NMPCDs, which are scarce now, so win:win.

It is not the planning, like I said it is the price. The only real way to push 4k 100hz is with two 1080 TIs and that PC is going to run you close to 3k. Until the price comes down the there won't be high enough adoption rate to bring the cost down. We are seeing some headway right now in the 2k space because for 1500 you can get a PC that can push 80+ HZ in some modern shooters if you are willing to play on sub-ultra settings.

1200-1500 seems like the spot that where a lot of gamers are with their budgets. Higher adoption levels always brings down cost.
 

ShiftyDevil

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 28, 2011
Posts:
7,278
Liked Posts:
4,708
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Washington Huskies
I bought this two weeks ago: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0173PEX20/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Took a while but I got the colors right. When I was monitor shopping I had similar requirements, 1440, IPS, around 27inches (to match my second monitor), but I also wanted Gsync. I bought this monitor initially but returned it because the colors were horrible: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0149QBOF0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

My 1070 has been pushing 1440 just fine in the games I play GTA V and The Witcher probably being the most demanding.

EDIT: It looks less try hard in person. A lot of PC Gaming focused hardware has an aesthetic I'm not really into, and even though the monitor's feet look kinda try hard they aren't that noticeable.
 

czman

Well-known member
Joined:
May 7, 2013
Posts:
2,195
Liked Posts:
551
I bought this two weeks ago: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0173PEX20/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Took a while but I got the colors right. When I was monitor shopping I had similar requirements, 1440, IPS, around 27inches (to match my second monitor), but I also wanted Gsync. I bought this monitor initially but returned it because the colors were horrible: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0149QBOF0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

My 1070 has been pushing 1440 just fine in the games I play GTA V and The Witcher probably being the most demanding.

EDIT: It looks less try hard in person. A lot of PC Gaming focused hardware has an aesthetic I'm not really into, and even though the monitor's feet look kinda try hard they aren't that noticeable.

What settings are you running GTA V and the Witcher at? Are you OCing your 1070 is it in a SLI? There is no way a 1070 should be pushing 144 frames consistently at 1440p on the highest settings in those games.

I was planning on getting the 1070, but when the price dropped on the 1080 to $500 I felt the price to performance gain made sense.
 

Crystallas

Three if by air
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
19,890
Liked Posts:
9,618
Location:
Next to the beef gristle mill
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
144Hz is the refresh rate. Not the frame rate. Frame rates aren't fixed to the monitor. Instead the refresh rate is how many times a display changes within a second. It can be confusing, because you might think the limit of the monitor is 100FPS if the refresh rate is 100Hz, but that is not how it actually works. If the monitor refreshes between frame changes (v-sync or not v-synced) then a 100FPS game on a 100Hz monitor could in theory execute in the middle of refreshes and the user only sees 50FPS (note: not saying this is common, just making a point to explain the case on how this works). Of course, that is some weird extreme and unlikely, but theoretically possible and should give a person an idea on how even maxed FPS aren't all displayed, thus why the higher the refresh rate of the monitor, the better the experience overall. Adaptive sync like g-sync and free-sync merely tie a double ended solution to greatly reduce tearing(not completely eliminate) and greatly limit(not eliminate) input lag. Also, the refresh is vertically executed and horizontally executed line and pixel at a time, where the video output is coded one screen at a time(which is also why some games are smoother in full-screen or windowed mode/borderless windowed mode).

Refresh and frame rates are not the same thing. Maybe the same to the eye if the frame rate is fixed, timed, and matches the monitor, but that does not happen. Only as a mere oversimplification can they be thought of as the same, but in reality, there is a lot to consider to why these terms are not interchangeable.
 

Top